Iain, no offense but...
If that was done by the media network under duress and at the behest of the RIAA members - e.g., under threats to pull RIAA members' and record label business from the network - then it could be a restrictive trade practice or a monopoly practice.
-IainB
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet like duck, a broad bill like a duck, it's probably a <censored but rhymes with: /> duck.
Setting aside "rules of logic" and "proofs", common sense needs to prevail at some point. What is it likely? It's a <censored but rhymes with: /> duck.
I'm not sure about NZ - which to some, by now, might look a bit like the lawless old Wild West (e.g., after the Dotcom raid, etc.) - but I would have thought that such practices would be illegal in many/most of the developed countries.
-IainB
Are you confusing "developed" with "sane" or "just"? They're not the same.
Pure & simple. Dotcom is a female mallard. The NZ establishment is a male mallard. It's mating season. What happens? Yep. You guessed it.
At this point, you need to be completely <censored but unfortunately doesn't rhyme with: /> brain dead to think that Dotcom is not being purposefully persecuted.
BTW - Good article finds there!
